As a former small-town journalist who is now on track to go on for graduate studies in ecology (Got funding?), I'd like to throw out a suggestion on this topic, with some notes on execution:
Find your local weekly newspaper and contact them to do a long-term story, or a series of stories, on you doing your research. The large dailies are less likely to take on a project like this given the news cycle and styles there, I think. The reporters at the small papers are likely there either because they are young, ambitious journalists looking for a great story to launch their careers from, or they are slightly older folks who just love writing stories or love the particular community they are in. Readership for these papers is typically a little older, so you're really getting at the long-time community members who care a little bit about everything, but their only expertise is in their particular line of work (and town gossip). I'm sure you can imagine how reaching this crowd would be beneficial... Small-town papers are always looking for stories, as opposed to articles. A story has a trajectory and it has characters, as opposed to an article that is a simple report on an issue. If you're going to try to get a story going, be prepared to be involved in it. It can't be just about the research, but about why you are doing the research, and the humanistic problems you encounter. Also remember that you are only providing the material; you are not driving what gets written. Take a deep breath, and accept that. Do NOT ask to see the story prior to publication. Would you let a journalist peer-review your work? No, so be respectful and don't expect them to let you review theirs. If you've been clear, patient, and forthcoming, the journalist will get the story right. That's their job. The best way you can help here is to come up with some really good and simple analogies that explain a concept. Concerned about the public not understanding uncertainty? Make a simple analogy, like having 90% confidence a bald tire will cause an accident, and that 10% chance of that being untrue is not a reason to fail to act. (But obviously do a better job than that...). Q: "So, what do you mean when you're talking about ecosystem functions?" A: "Well, think about a car engine..." Or baking, or whatever you think works. I can't remember where I heard this line, but it's perfect: Keep in mind that you've been working on your research your entire life -- the journalist has been working on it since lunch. And I'd add that the reader has been working on it for about 30 seconds. I think one of the most important things to remember, especially as "outreach" increasingly gets written into academic job descriptions, is that the journalist acts as an intermediary between you and the public because you didn't go to school for communications! Use the professions that exist to complete your mission. Don't do all the chemical analysis if you're a statistician. I know you all think you are great writers and communicators, but I've thrown many peer-reviewed articles across the room because they are so poorly written. Lastly, there is a lot of talk about "hostile" media as if this is a terribly new thing. The concept of "objectivity" in journalism is a relatively recent invention. Journalism is better than it ever has been. And there are two types of journalism out there that are required in order for the business model to work: the actual news, and the entertainment. Don't get your knickers twisted around because a scientist goes on Fox News expecting to have a serious discussion. Instead the scientist should be chastised for thinking that because it is a "news" organization it has a moral obligation to perform an *ideal* act of news. There are venues for *ideal* news. Fox is not it, but small-town community journalism can be. Cheers, Gordon Lane Undergraduate Student Department of Environmental Science University of Southern Maine Gorham, Maine 04038 gordon.l...@maine.edu
